@Calia -- yes, it is totally true that they can differentiate their equipment. I have not used a harness on Kuma (outside of the Palisades pack), always keeping him on the flat collar. But I am sure that he would pull like a banshee with one on! Kuma also knows the difference between a shorter leash (used for training) and a long leash (for hiking). :-)
@TheWalrus - I hope it works for you. Give it a bit of time for them to figure it out, but I think it will work as long as you are very clear on only using the one piece of equipment for similar activities. It might also help to have a shorter vs longer leash and maybe even put some sort of bell or something initially on one piece of equipment to help the dog identify it.
Funny thing about my male is that he also knows not to ever mark while using his choker collar, but once he moves to the flat collar (assuming we are outside), he is a marking fool, peeing on everything.
@TheWalrus Thanks for the clarification, but if some NIPPO members would go as far as saying they are kept in a manner that is more akin to a livestock, rather than showing the dog still has a purpose/place in the modern world, then it would be very difficult to have the breed be accepted by regular people. Even livestock has a purpose (meat, milk etc) and is not kept just because they look pretty. It will be more close to keeping an exotic animal than being included as part of a family in a household, which is what most people want - a dog as a pet.
Kennels can keep as many dogs as they can sustain in the natural state (which is limited training to just do well enough in a conformation show ring), but they will have difficulties placing puppies in regular homes as not many people just want a pretty animal kept in a kennel, thus the declining number of registration. I understand the kennels and NIPPO members may not be able to do much training due to the numbers of dogs they keep, but any breed, even the Spitz or Northern Breeds or NK can be trained.
The old school of thought is if you train a dog to be obedient, you are taking the life or spirit out of that dog as a animal and turn it into a robot. I don't think it is the training/learning itself that takes the spirit out of a dog, but how a dog is trained. If you train a dog using corrections/aversives, the dog is less likely to explore and offer behavior as doing nothing is usually safer than doing something, thus turning them into a robot. Training/learning in a fun way does not make a dog lose its spirit, I would argue that it really brings out a dog's true temperament in more facets than just standing pretty in a show ring.
NKs probably are never gonna get the reputation of easy to train as some other breeds, but they all can make great pets if given proper training/guidance in the right hand. We just need more NK owners showing what their dogs can do to the general public and the more inquisitive minds will follow.
Well, I don't mean to turn the conversation back to an earlier point, but there is one thing that I am rather conflicted on...
NIPPO wants the Shikoku to show (in the ring) with a certain type of character, yet I would be willing to bet money that the original Shikoku Ken, the ones that actually hunted, were not nearly as quarrelsome as what is being produced by the upper-echelon NIPPO kennels today. A quarrelsome dog who is overexcited by minor stimuli, who shows redirect (displaced) aggression, and wants to fight most of the dogs it sees is not gonna make a very good hunter...
So, that makes me wonder, is it possible that NIPPO has missed a little on what the Shikoku temperament was? Wouldn't a more "true" test of the dogs, and how close they are to their origin, be a hunting test and not a "face-off" type "test"?
----
In regards to Shikoku as pets, I think they make nice companions. Though, I've noticed a pretty huge range in temperament with the breed: everything from calm and chill (like an Akita), to hyper active OCD I want to eat everything.
I've seen Shikoku who can barley be in the same room with other dogs, male or female, but are great with puppies - to Shikoku who love all dogs and are very playful but want to eat puppies because the squeak like little prey items.
Anyway, my point is, I think this huge range temperament makes it very hard to make any sweeping generalizations on the temperament of the breed. Especially considering the vast majority of the Shikoku on this forum are pretty closely related to each other.
sandrat888 said "The old school of thought is if you train a dog to be obedient, you are taking the life or spirit out of that dog as a animal and turn it into a robot."
The train of thought that overly training a dog takes out some of the character/spirit of the dog isn't unique to the Shikoku. Some oldtimers in Jindos also think that way. It's not the adversives that they're thinking of though. It is the dog relying on the person instead of being self-confident enough to take care of itself. I'm reminded of an old comparison Brad had between his Shibas and his medium sized NK. When it started raining, the Shibas came to the door asking to be let back in. The other NK found their own cover. If a NK (or Jindo) was let loose in the mountains, they should be able to survive. That is just one facet of a "wild nature."
There's also some disdain among oldtimers in seeing a look of begging on the dog when the dog is trained a lot in obedience. Myself, I hate the newer craned neck that people ask of their dogs in obedience work. My old dogs had always looked forward, and could see me perfectly fine from the corners of their eyes.
The free-stack in shows is a microcosm of this difference in what people want to see. Western free-stack often have the dog facing the handler, eagerly waiting for a bait, with wide open expression. In the Japanese and Korean old way, the dog is faced forward in front of the owner. The dogs are certainly aware that the owner is on the other end of the leash, but their focus is on heading off any other dog that enters their personal space. Of course the body language will be very different than the baited expression. And untrained dogs have a huge distance in which they consider personal space. More trained dogs have a shrunken distance. The face-off/sparring if done right equalizes the trigger.
IMO, the dog that breaks into wild barking while the other is pinning him with his gaze is the weaker dog. If the two were kenneled side by side, I would expect that the quieter dog would even pee on the rival's barking face to show his disdain.
@ayk I am not saying aversive or correction is the only way to take the spirit out of a dog, but how a dog learns. If learning/training is kept as fun and exciting, the dog is inquisitive as there is no real downside of exploring and trying. By manipulating their learning environment, you can make it easy and fun for the dog initially to set him up for success, then gradually up the ante, so he eventually learns what you want without too much environment control.
Whatever the standards call for temperament, I would argue that unless you can show the dog worthy in some other formats/venues (be it a hunting instinct test, a companion event performance as in competition obedience, rally-o, agility, flyball or nosework etc) outside of the conformation ring, you really are just doing a beauty contest.
"KAN- I" means strength of character and dignity. Dogs may be lively and bold without being excessively aggressive to the point of noble excellence.
"KAN-I", based on the description above, is mostly a combination of genetics and socialization.
"RYOSEI" means faithful and obedient. Dogs should have total trust and attachment to the owners expressing full bond and partnership.
How can you show "RYOSEI" in a conformation ring? This has to be evaluated by some other ways/venues/activities.
"SOBOKU" means natural beauty from seasoned maturity and modest appearance. Its expression is feeling of refined simplicity and sober elegance.
"SOBOKU" seems to be mostly from the results of genetics, as it talks about a dog's appearance.
The rationale against more training/learning is training will make a dog lose its "KAN-I". Are those 2 mutually exclusive that getting RYOSEI is going to make your dog lose KAN-I? I honestly don't think so. Learning does not make a dog or a person loses its spirit. Drilling and cramming will.
The others have done a better job making a point that I was unsuccessful in making to you Sandra. The dogs who get a lot of drilling and become accustomed to looking to the handler for security or permission, lose that crispness and spontaneity that helps create that very Japanese serious, severe, unfazable expression. The other point, is that the novelty of show ring can fade for the dog, when they get a lot of proofing in lots of new settings as is usually done when training for competition obedience. I believe there is a happy medium, where the dogs can have additional training beyond show training, and still be excited enough about the ring to do well and have correct expression.
@sandrat888 - I hope to elaborate more later on, but one quick example of how to eliminate a dog that lacks ryosei in a conformation ring is a dog that re-directs to his handler in the presence of other dogs. I've seen that in a Beikoku Shiba show one year and the handler disqualified himself immediately.
I don't have Shikoku, and have not even met one, so while I've been reading with a great deal of interest, I haven't had anything to contribute. But this morning, reading over this, I see the discussion about obedience (and whether it takes away Kan-i) to be basically a cross cultural difference. It seems to me from reading this, that the older Japanese view of how the breed should be does not coincide with the American view (or perhaps it's a more contemporary view?) of how training effects dogs. I felt like Ayk and The Walrus explained quite well how the differences in point of view work. It seems to me that something very different is valued in here.
I am by no means an expert on Japanese culture, having only lived in Osaka briefly in the 90s, but one thing I noticed is that there is a great value on the natural, and I came to think of it as valuing an illusion of nature or an illusion of wildness. It is not the desire for a true wildness, but for something that has been groomed by humans to remind of them of wildness. Of course a dog has never been a wild animal, esp. one who is a specific breed. However, the dog can remind people of wilderness, by being self-reliant, almost feral in some behaviors, and that can be valued, even as it has to be created by humans whether through selective breeding or training (or lack thereof). I think about it like a Japanese maple growing in a small garden in a city like Osaka--the maple is not wild. It is carefully tended, but the arrangement may be purposely "artless" enough to mimic the idea of a tree in a forest. I saw this a lot, and as someone who moved to Japan from Alaska, I was at first baffled by the "artificial" wildness I saw valued. But after awhile, I grew quite interested in it.
And that's how I see the way "wildness" might be valued in a breed, and I even admire it a bit (though some aspects of dog breeding in Japan make me uncomfortable--seeing them as livestock for example), as I admire, sometimes, the almost feral qualities in my Shibas. It makes them difficult to live with, but I also admire the spirit of it.
Anyway, hope this isn't a totally useless post, but I was very struck by how the discussion seemed to be coming to a point that can't be reconciled, because the point of view in looking at the breed was so vastly different, and that did seem to me to be a cultural difference.
I can possibly explain this a bit better by using an example. A dog can have great presence in the ring, 'kan-i', facing off with the other dogs. He can show energy, strength, and be bold, but a dog with 'ryosei' or 'good temperament' will be balanced. He won't be over the top lunging at the other dogs, barking, he won't redirect onto his handler (I've seen this happen more than I'd like), he will allow his handler to handle him when it's time to show his teeth to the judge, and he will move into his natural stack when his handler guides him to his spot.
When the judge is gauging a dog's 'honshitsu', (essence/substance ie temperament) he's looking for balance in 'kan-i', 'ryosei', and 'soboku'. I could go further and add that he's not judging the dog's trainability. And just to tack on to this the actual meaning of 'ryosei' is not obedient or faithful, I believe the closest meaning would be 'good temperament'. This is manifested in many ways, some of which would be obedience and faithful/loyal.
One of the most amusing/interesting thing that I saw at the Beikoku show was an instance when two littermate brothers who did not like each other were in the same ring. They were fine with other dogs.
Their owners put them into their stack (not a face-off) and stepped behind the dogs. The dogs did not budge from their foward-facing positions or turn their heads to look at each other, but the amount of noise those two made was ferocious. "Talking smack" was how a spectator termed it.
Some interesting points brought up in the article that may be worth discussing, and somewhat already touched on, here:
"When it comes to long-term survival, somehow it seems that the deck is stacked against small breed populations. In the end, population survival (and population genetics) is favoured by the existence of large numbers and broad geographic distribution. A population confined to one small region is highly vulnerable. A population consisting of only a few hundred individuals or fewer is highly vulnerable. There is no getting around the fact that numbers are the best defense against survival risks such as viral disease, social change, natural disasters, war and famine, etc."
"Until breed purpose becomes obsolescent through social and/or environmental change, there is no problem. As long as a breed purpose continues to enjoy a healthy existence and to promote a continuous demand, that purpose itself dictates a certain level of breeding and a certain size population overall. As soon as that changes, though, the purpose-bred population becomes a legacy population that is maintained -- if it is maintained at all -- through nostalgia and respect for the legends of a bygone era. Perhaps in time new purposes may be found for the legacy population. Perhaps the old purpose can be continued on a reduced scale as a recreational pursuit."
I know a greater part of the article talks about dog sled racing, but in essence the evolution of purpose of a sled dog can go hand-in-hand with the evolution of any other purposed bred dog breed. Sled racing has become more of a sport, to get to the finish line as fast as possible, and less of a way of survival. If you compare many of the modern day working sled dogs with those of the past and those in the show, you will see a significant difference in look and somewhat in personality.
Right now, it seems like the Shikoku is a working purpose bred dog without a working purpose, their purpose has now become just that of a show dog. The breed is pranced around a show ring, trying to maintain some semblance of their working personality, but without a working job to really proof it out, much consistency will be lost along with any actual workability. Most of the hunting seems to be done with Kishu, mixed breeds or European breeds so where does that leave the Shikoku?
If all they are going to be is a show breed, then their purpose should be that of a companion/pet and the breeder's focus as such. But if the breed can once again find a working purpose that keeps many of it's past or current "features" intact, even if only recreational for now, then the breed can find a way to survive with minimal changes.
In essence, I feel that the Seppala Sled Dog is going through the same thing as the Shikoku, and may even be at a more advanced stage due to a lot of similar decisions already made. Taking the experiences and knowledge from other similar breed situations could help improve the chances of the Shikoku's survival.
I read a book called, kettou o mamoru tatakai (the fight to preserve the bloodline). I actually read it cover to cover about 12 times since I got it last year. In the Kai ken section there was a story about a Kai enthusiast who was really disappointed with the way the Kai ken has lost its hunting dog roots. He even went to saying that a nihon ken that won't hunt is worthless.
So what he did was he got as many hunting line Kai pups as he can and housed the pups with hunters in an attempt to rebuild the original Kai hunting dogs. Maybe some thing like this is what it's going to take to possibly revive the hunting drive in the Shikoku ken as you see with the kishu ken. Although I'm not sure how many hunters would be willing to take Shikoku pups...
While I'm new to the board, I'd like to address the last post by Calia from a different point of view. I apologize if I state something that has been discussed to death elsewhere or step on any toes.. I have a long-term background in animal conservation as a zookeeper (ex-keeper now) and one of the essential tasks of zoological institutions is sustaining small populations of animals for the long term. This means that there is an attempt to sustain the genetics (and the behaviors that they control) for a minimum of 100 to a maximum of 500 years. There are successful stories that involved a very small founding population (such as with Przewalski's horse which was recovered with (if I remember correctly 9 breeding animals). With respect to the thoughts so far in this discussion, if the genetics of the population are managed (even at the current levels), then the Shikoku as it currently is known would be safe for a significant period of time (depending on number of founders). The rise and fall of popularity in a population where future breeders are determined not by potential genetic diversity but by the reduction of diversity through the fixation of traits is a big risk. This results in loss of not only genetic diversity but a greater and greater risk of the fixation of negative genetic traits as well eventually the risk of inbreeding and outbreeding depression.
There are several different methods that can be taken to ensure maximal genetic diversity such as sperm banking... reducing the frequency at which new generations of dogs are produced (assures sufficient space for the population if there is minimal interest).
I should probably stop there are I shouldn't be too controversial on my first post. I do have to say that I've found a number of these threads to be extremely interesting.
I'm not sure how in depth of a discussion people would like to have on how a management plan like those used for institutional management plans works but I'm willing to try...
@the_november_rain; It is sort of like a ssp (species survivial plan) but in this case what we are discussing is what is known as a PMP (Population Management Plan) or a TMP ( Taxon Management Plan). The difference between these and a SSP is that these programs are for sustaining captive populations that aren't going to be used for reintroduction in a manner that reduces or prevents the requirement for outcrossing (since they want to minimize how much impact is made on wild populations by requiring new outcrosses) (and in Zoos so they don't exceed the available space for the animals.
I am going to make clear, that I do not mean any disparagement to the show people or anyone else who breeds responsibly. I'm simply trying to compare different methods.
In these cases, the goal is to sustain the maximal genetic diversity of the population to not only ensure that the animals remain as close to possible as to the type when the program started but retain the genetic diversity that not only can help with disease resistence (control of the histocompatability complex), but other factors such as temperment or behavior. Much of the hard background work is already done since the population as a whole is registered into a data base so degrees of kinship can be determined which helps with genetic management.
I'm not sure of how much people understand how genetics function when talking about captive populations and the differences of how which individuals are selected for reproduction impacts the genetics of the population. There is already an impact to the population through what is known as the founder effect. This means that the genetics are somewhat limited by the number of animals you with which you have to start the breeding population. The second is the impact of artificial selection (in this case the breed standard). The third is swings in population numbers as this can change the frequency certain alleles in a population.
So the number of founder animals in the US (and other populations) are known and measures can be taken to sustain that diversity (more on this later).
With respect to the artificial selections, selection to a breed standard is a form of artificial selection. While it conserves the desired phenotype of the breed, it can do so at the expense of the genotype. The way this happens is because the breeders are typically chosen by a system where in the judgment of experts on the breed standard, the animal that most closely typifies the standard (with disqualifications for thsoe that do not). The dogs that win these trials are often the ones that are most sought after to use for producing the next generation.This means that as the alleles that produce the dogs that most closely have the traits that match the breed standard become fixed, the less genetic diversity is passed along as the loss of the genes that code for variations aren't the only ones lost but alleles that are close to those lost genes are commonly lost as well. The additional side effect of the fixing of those traits is the potential for fixing other undesirable traits (as a basic hypothetical example, increased risk of diabetes). It is often impossible to go backwards to increase diversity so the outcrosses have to be made to other lines that while they meet the standard, may not be genetically diverse. This often works for a few generations but as more and more outcrosses are made between the lines, the genes may end up becoming fixed in those lines as well. There are several different routes that can be taken to help alleviate the risk that these pose and prevent or mitigate any long-term risk to the population. One of these is due to the advances in artificial insemination and sperm storage. This would allow breeders to ideally go back to animals that were at low risk of the negative traits and attempt to dilute these genes or changes (say to behavior). Another is to maintain two different populations that are bred for different reasons. The first is the show ring population, the second which is analagous to an assurance colony which isn't bred to the exacting standards of the show ring but managed for maximal diversity (by breeding recommendations to breed the most unrelated animals to one another). This provides a population which is different than the show ring population (where winners or the offspring of winners may contribute more descendents which reduces overall genetic diversity).
My hand is cramping so I'll come back later to address the risk of popularity swings on genetic diversity.
Picking up where I left off.. This provides a population which is different than the show ring population (where winners or the offspring of winners may contribute more descendents which reduces overall genetic diversity). If there is an assurance population with a good genetic diversity then any issues that show up down the road, there are options available to to go and outcross into to help deal with any genetic issues. The down side to the assurance population is that you need sufficient space to hold enough animals to maintain enough genetic diversity for the population in addition to the show ring population. This may not be a viable option (since I don't know enough about the potential space for both populations (isn't as easy to determine as institutional space)).
With respect to population swings, these are bad for populations in institutions as well as in various animal related hobbies... If the genetics aren't managed, then population swings can be bad for the animals. If the genetics are not managed, then each swing up and down, results in changes in the populations which can then translate into less genetic diversity. As a hypothetical example, if a breeder has difficulty in placing puppies or even dogs, then that breeder may spay or neuter dogs that were intended to be future breeders and then attempt to place them. These actions (and I'm sure I missed a few), then result in changes to the frequencies of the alleles.
I'm not sure if any of these options are feasible but I've pointed out some of the methods that PMP methodology could in theory work towards preventing or resolving some of the issues put forth in the above thread. Any method to ensure the population stays as it is currently would require sufficient people engaged in it and some manner to resolve conflicts. For example, if a group of breeders engaged in collecting and storing sperm of various dogs collectively to ensure sufficient genetic diversity, how does one ensure even distribution of the resources (or if a newer breeder joins later, are they disadvantaged in being able to access the stored sperm?). With an assurance population, care would have to be taken that animals surplus to the needs were not sold to irresponsible people who would then breed them or outcross them to create new crosses for the mass pet market. Since those animals wouldn't necessarily be descendents of show dogs (or even show quality since thier most valuable resource would be genetic diversity).
Yeah that's a good book, Gen. The author is a friend of mine. She's on FB.
Yanagisawa-san was the one that popularized the phrase/idea of returning the Kai to the mountains (yama ni kaese), and I've heard it used recently in regard to the Shikoku. I did read an article from the early days of the Kishu talking about how the breed would eventually change and its traits as a companion would become more important that its traits as a hunter, since most of the dogs would be kept in this way. It's all interesting and thought provoking stuff.
Ed, I find your idea of maintaining a second breeding line as an assurance population very intriguing. I hadn't thought of this before, and I like it.
I wonder how feasible it would be to generate an assurance population in terms of keeping a sperm bank? Would this be something breeders would be interested in? Could sperm be readily stored in -80C, does anyone have any experience on this subject?
Comments
@TheWalrus - I hope it works for you. Give it a bit of time for them to figure it out, but I think it will work as long as you are very clear on only using the one piece of equipment for similar activities. It might also help to have a shorter vs longer leash and maybe even put some sort of bell or something initially on one piece of equipment to help the dog identify it.
Funny thing about my male is that he also knows not to ever mark while using his choker collar, but once he moves to the flat collar (assuming we are outside), he is a marking fool, peeing on everything.
Kennels can keep as many dogs as they can sustain in the natural state (which is limited training to just do well enough in a conformation show ring), but they will have difficulties placing puppies in regular homes as not many people just want a pretty animal kept in a kennel, thus the declining number of registration. I understand the kennels and NIPPO members may not be able to do much training due to the numbers of dogs they keep, but any breed, even the Spitz or Northern Breeds or NK can be trained.
The old school of thought is if you train a dog to be obedient, you are taking the life or spirit out of that dog as a animal and turn it into a robot. I don't think it is the training/learning itself that takes the spirit out of a dog, but how a dog is trained. If you train a dog using corrections/aversives, the dog is less likely to explore and offer behavior as doing nothing is usually safer than doing something, thus turning them into a robot. Training/learning in a fun way does not make a dog lose its spirit, I would argue that it really brings out a dog's true temperament in more facets than just standing pretty in a show ring.
NKs probably are never gonna get the reputation of easy to train as some other breeds, but they all can make great pets if given proper training/guidance in the right hand. We just need more NK owners showing what their dogs can do to the general public and the more inquisitive minds will follow.
NIPPO wants the Shikoku to show (in the ring) with a certain type of character, yet I would be willing to bet money that the original Shikoku Ken, the ones that actually hunted, were not nearly as quarrelsome as what is being produced by the upper-echelon NIPPO kennels today. A quarrelsome dog who is overexcited by minor stimuli, who shows redirect (displaced) aggression, and wants to fight most of the dogs it sees is not gonna make a very good hunter...
So, that makes me wonder, is it possible that NIPPO has missed a little on what the Shikoku temperament was? Wouldn't a more "true" test of the dogs, and how close they are to their origin, be a hunting test and not a "face-off" type "test"?
----
In regards to Shikoku as pets, I think they make nice companions. Though, I've noticed a pretty huge range in temperament with the breed: everything from calm and chill (like an Akita), to hyper active OCD I want to eat everything.
I've seen Shikoku who can barley be in the same room with other dogs, male or female, but are great with puppies - to Shikoku who love all dogs and are very playful but want to eat puppies because the squeak like little prey items.
Anyway, my point is, I think this huge range temperament makes it very hard to make any sweeping generalizations on the temperament of the breed. Especially considering the vast majority of the Shikoku on this forum are pretty closely related to each other.
----
The train of thought that overly training a dog takes out some of the character/spirit of the dog isn't unique to the Shikoku. Some oldtimers in Jindos also think that way. It's not the adversives that they're thinking of though. It is the dog relying on the person instead of being self-confident enough to take care of itself. I'm reminded of an old comparison Brad had between his Shibas and his medium sized NK. When it started raining, the Shibas came to the door asking to be let back in. The other NK found their own cover. If a NK (or Jindo) was let loose in the mountains, they should be able to survive. That is just one facet of a "wild nature."
There's also some disdain among oldtimers in seeing a look of begging on the dog when the dog is trained a lot in obedience. Myself, I hate the newer craned neck that people ask of their dogs in obedience work. My old dogs had always looked forward, and could see me perfectly fine from the corners of their eyes.
The free-stack in shows is a microcosm of this difference in what people want to see. Western free-stack often have the dog facing the handler, eagerly waiting for a bait, with wide open expression. In the Japanese and Korean old way, the dog is faced forward in front of the owner. The dogs are certainly aware that the owner is on the other end of the leash, but their focus is on heading off any other dog that enters their personal space. Of course the body language will be very different than the baited expression. And untrained dogs have a huge distance in which they consider personal space. More trained dogs have a shrunken distance. The face-off/sparring if done right equalizes the trigger.
IMO, the dog that breaks into wild barking while the other is pinning him with his gaze is the weaker dog. If the two were kenneled side by side, I would expect that the quieter dog would even pee on the rival's barking face to show his disdain.
Whatever the standards call for temperament, I would argue that unless you can show the dog worthy in some other formats/venues (be it a hunting instinct test, a companion event performance as in competition obedience, rally-o, agility, flyball or nosework etc) outside of the conformation ring, you really are just doing a beauty contest.
"KAN- I" means strength of character and dignity. Dogs may be lively and
bold without being excessively aggressive to the point of noble excellence.
"KAN-I", based on the description above, is mostly a combination of genetics and socialization.
"RYOSEI" means faithful and obedient. Dogs should have total trust and attachment to the owners expressing full bond and partnership.
How can you show "RYOSEI" in a conformation ring? This has to be evaluated by some other ways/venues/activities.
"SOBOKU" means natural beauty from seasoned maturity and modest appearance. Its expression is feeling of refined simplicity and sober
elegance.
"SOBOKU" seems to be mostly from the results of genetics, as it talks about a dog's appearance.
The rationale against more training/learning is training will make a dog lose its "KAN-I". Are those 2 mutually exclusive that getting RYOSEI is going to make your dog lose KAN-I? I honestly don't think so. Learning does not make a dog or a person loses its spirit. Drilling and cramming will.
I am by no means an expert on Japanese culture, having only lived in Osaka briefly in the 90s, but one thing I noticed is that there is a great value on the natural, and I came to think of it as valuing an illusion of nature or an illusion of wildness. It is not the desire for a true wildness, but for something that has been groomed by humans to remind of them of wildness. Of course a dog has never been a wild animal, esp. one who is a specific breed. However, the dog can remind people of wilderness, by being self-reliant, almost feral in some behaviors, and that can be valued, even as it has to be created by humans whether through selective breeding or training (or lack thereof). I think about it like a Japanese maple growing in a small garden in a city like Osaka--the maple is not wild. It is carefully tended, but the arrangement may be purposely "artless" enough to mimic the idea of a tree in a forest. I saw this a lot, and as someone who moved to Japan from Alaska, I was at first baffled by the "artificial" wildness I saw valued. But after awhile, I grew quite interested in it.
And that's how I see the way "wildness" might be valued in a breed, and I even admire it a bit (though some aspects of dog breeding in Japan make me uncomfortable--seeing them as livestock for example), as I admire, sometimes, the almost feral qualities in my Shibas. It makes them difficult to live with, but I also admire the spirit of it.
Anyway, hope this isn't a totally useless post, but I was very struck by how the discussion seemed to be coming to a point that can't be reconciled, because the point of view in looking at the breed was so vastly different, and that did seem to me to be a cultural difference.
When the judge is gauging a dog's 'honshitsu', (essence/substance ie temperament) he's looking for balance in 'kan-i', 'ryosei', and 'soboku'. I could go further and add that he's not judging the dog's trainability. And just to tack on to this the actual meaning of 'ryosei' is not obedient or faithful, I believe the closest meaning would be 'good temperament'. This is manifested in many ways, some of which would be obedience and faithful/loyal.
Their owners put them into their stack (not a face-off) and stepped behind the dogs. The dogs did not budge from their foward-facing positions or turn their heads to look at each other, but the amount of noise those two made was ferocious. "Talking smack" was how a spectator termed it.
Some interesting points brought up in the article that may be worth discussing, and somewhat already touched on, here:
"When it comes to long-term survival, somehow it seems that the deck is stacked against small breed populations. In the end, population survival (and population genetics) is favoured by the existence of large numbers and broad geographic distribution. A population confined to one small region is highly vulnerable. A population consisting of only a few hundred individuals or fewer is highly vulnerable. There is no getting around the fact that numbers are the best defense against survival risks such as viral disease, social change, natural disasters, war and famine, etc."
"Until breed purpose becomes obsolescent through social and/or environmental change, there is no problem. As long as a breed purpose continues to enjoy a healthy existence and to promote a continuous demand, that purpose itself dictates a certain level of breeding and a certain size population overall. As soon as that changes, though, the purpose-bred population becomes a legacy population that is maintained -- if it is maintained at all -- through nostalgia and respect for the legends of a bygone era. Perhaps in time new purposes may be found for the legacy population. Perhaps the old purpose can be continued on a reduced scale as a recreational pursuit."
I know a greater part of the article talks about dog sled racing, but in essence the evolution of purpose of a sled dog can go hand-in-hand with the evolution of any other purposed bred dog breed. Sled racing has become more of a sport, to get to the finish line as fast as possible, and less of a way of survival. If you compare many of the modern day working sled dogs with those of the past and those in the show, you will see a significant difference in look and somewhat in personality.
Right now, it seems like the Shikoku is a working purpose bred dog without a working purpose, their purpose has now become just that of a show dog. The breed is pranced around a show ring, trying to maintain some semblance of their working personality, but without a working job to really proof it out, much consistency will be lost along with any actual workability. Most of the hunting seems to be done with Kishu, mixed breeds or European breeds so where does that leave the Shikoku?
If all they are going to be is a show breed, then their purpose should be that of a companion/pet and the breeder's focus as such. But if the breed can once again find a working purpose that keeps many of it's past or current "features" intact, even if only recreational for now, then the breed can find a way to survive with minimal changes.
EDIT: A few other articles that may be relevent, from the same website:
http://www.seppalakennels.com/articles/exploitative-breeding.htm
http://www.seppalakennels.com/articles/genetictide.htm
http://www.seppalakennels.com/articles/genetic-tide-swells.htm
In essence, I feel that the Seppala Sled Dog is going through the same thing as the Shikoku, and may even be at a more advanced stage due to a lot of similar decisions already made. Taking the experiences and knowledge from other similar breed situations could help improve the chances of the Shikoku's survival.
Snf
So what he did was he got as many hunting line Kai pups as he can and housed the pups with hunters in an attempt to rebuild the original Kai hunting dogs. Maybe some thing like this is what it's going to take to possibly revive the hunting drive in the Shikoku ken as you see with the kishu ken. Although I'm not sure how many hunters would be willing to take Shikoku pups...
I have a long-term background in animal conservation as a zookeeper (ex-keeper now) and one of the essential tasks of zoological institutions is sustaining small populations of animals for the long term. This means that there is an attempt to sustain the genetics (and the behaviors that they control) for a minimum of 100 to a maximum of 500 years. There are successful stories that involved a very small founding population (such as with Przewalski's horse which was recovered with (if I remember correctly 9 breeding animals). With respect to the thoughts so far in this discussion, if the genetics of the population are managed (even at the current levels), then the Shikoku as it currently is known would be safe for a significant period of time (depending on number of founders). The rise and fall of popularity in a population where future breeders are determined not by potential genetic diversity but by the reduction of diversity through the fixation of traits is a big risk. This results in loss of not only genetic diversity but a greater and greater risk of the fixation of negative genetic traits as well eventually the risk of inbreeding and outbreeding depression.
There are several different methods that can be taken to ensure maximal genetic diversity such as sperm banking... reducing the frequency at which new generations of dogs are produced (assures sufficient space for the population if there is minimal interest).
I should probably stop there are I shouldn't be too controversial on my first post. I do have to say that I've found a number of these threads to be extremely interesting.
Thanks for your time,
Ed
Ed
Ed
Jesse
I am going to make clear, that I do not mean any disparagement to the show people or anyone else who breeds responsibly. I'm simply trying to compare different methods.
In these cases, the goal is to sustain the maximal genetic diversity of the population to not only ensure that the animals remain as close to possible as to the type when the program started but retain the genetic diversity that not only can help with disease resistence (control of the histocompatability complex), but other factors such as temperment or behavior. Much of the hard background work is already done since the population as a whole is registered into a data base so degrees of kinship can be determined which helps with genetic management.
I'm not sure of how much people understand how genetics function when talking about captive populations and the differences of how which individuals are selected for reproduction impacts the genetics of the population. There is already an impact to the population through what is known as the founder effect. This means that the genetics are somewhat limited by the number of animals you with which you have to start the breeding population. The second is the impact of artificial selection (in this case the breed standard). The third is swings in population numbers as this can change the frequency certain alleles in a population.
So the number of founder animals in the US (and other populations) are known and measures can be taken to sustain that diversity (more on this later).
With respect to the artificial selections, selection to a breed standard is a form of artificial selection. While it conserves the desired phenotype of the breed, it can do so at the expense of the genotype. The way this happens is because the breeders are typically chosen by a system where in the judgment of experts on the breed standard, the animal that most closely typifies the standard (with disqualifications for thsoe that do not). The dogs that win these trials are often the ones that are most sought after to use for producing the next generation.This means that as the alleles that produce the dogs that most closely have the traits that match the breed standard become fixed, the less genetic diversity is passed along as the loss of the genes that code for variations aren't the only ones lost but alleles that are close to those lost genes are commonly lost as well. The additional side effect of the fixing of those traits is the potential for fixing other undesirable traits (as a basic hypothetical example, increased risk of diabetes). It is often impossible to go backwards to increase diversity so the outcrosses have to be made to other lines that while they meet the standard, may not be genetically diverse. This often works for a few generations but as more and more outcrosses are made between the lines, the genes may end up becoming fixed in those lines as well. There are several different routes that can be taken to help alleviate the risk that these pose and prevent or mitigate any long-term risk to the population. One of these is due to the advances in artificial insemination and sperm storage. This would allow breeders to ideally go back to animals that were at low risk of the negative traits and attempt to dilute these genes or changes (say to behavior). Another is to maintain two different populations that are bred for different reasons. The first is the show ring population, the second which is analagous to an assurance colony which isn't bred to the exacting standards of the show ring but managed for maximal diversity (by breeding recommendations to breed the most unrelated animals to one another). This provides a population which is different than the show ring population (where winners or the offspring of winners may contribute more descendents which reduces overall genetic diversity).
My hand is cramping so I'll come back later to address the risk of popularity swings on genetic diversity.
Thanks for all of the patience.
Ed
This provides a population which is different than the show ring population (where winners or the offspring of winners may contribute more descendents which reduces overall genetic diversity). If there is an assurance population with a good genetic diversity then any issues that show up down the road, there are options available to to go and outcross into to help deal with any genetic issues. The down side to the assurance population is that you need sufficient space to hold enough animals to maintain enough genetic diversity for the population in addition to the show ring population. This may not be a viable option (since I don't know enough about the potential space for both populations (isn't as easy to determine as institutional space)).
With respect to population swings, these are bad for populations in institutions as well as in various animal related hobbies... If the genetics aren't managed, then population swings can be bad for the animals. If the genetics are not managed, then each swing up and down, results in changes in the populations which can then translate into less genetic diversity. As a hypothetical example, if a breeder has difficulty in placing puppies or even dogs, then that breeder may spay or neuter dogs that were intended to be future breeders and then attempt to place them. These actions (and I'm sure I missed a few), then result in changes to the frequencies of the alleles.
I'm not sure if any of these options are feasible but I've pointed out some of the methods that PMP methodology could in theory work towards preventing or resolving some of the issues put forth in the above thread. Any method to ensure the population stays as it is currently would require sufficient people engaged in it and some manner to resolve conflicts. For example, if a group of breeders engaged in collecting and storing sperm of various dogs collectively to ensure sufficient genetic diversity, how does one ensure even distribution of the resources (or if a newer breeder joins later, are they disadvantaged in being able to access the stored sperm?). With an assurance population, care would have to be taken that animals surplus to the needs were not sold to irresponsible people who would then breed them or outcross them to create new crosses for the mass pet market. Since those animals wouldn't necessarily be descendents of show dogs (or even show quality since thier most valuable resource would be genetic diversity).
Hopefully I didn't miss anything.
Just some thoughts from different background.
Ed
Yanagisawa-san was the one that popularized the phrase/idea of returning the Kai to the mountains (yama ni kaese), and I've heard it used recently in regard to the Shikoku. I did read an article from the early days of the Kishu talking about how the breed would eventually change and its traits as a companion would become more important that its traits as a hunter, since most of the dogs would be kept in this way. It's all interesting and thought provoking stuff.
Ed, I find your idea of maintaining a second breeding line as an assurance population very intriguing. I hadn't thought of this before, and I like it.